One of the biggest differences that caught my attention was when Goku met Goten. In the manga he's more shocked at how much Goten resembles him than he is about finding out he had another kid. In the anime Goku gives him a big ol' hug. It's sweet and all but there's a problem. Later on when Goku is about to leave for good (or so he thought) Goten hadn't had seen any affection from Goku, and when he finally got to courage to approach him to get a hug, Goku gladly does it. Goten then breaks down crying. In the manga you get the sense that it's because he had so many emotions pent up at the point he didn't know how else to deal with them. But because that added that scene of them hugging at the tournament, now he just seems sad that he's leaving and nothing more.

I find the manga version to be a bit more powerful because that was the first time Goku had shown him any affection and it was just before he was about to leave, not when he first arrived.

And can we stop using the term "Flanderize"? Not only is it an unnecessary term, it also mischaracterizes Ned Flanders as some two dimensional caricature.

No. And considering what happened to the Simpsons, which also suffered from being too popular for its own good and overstaying it’s welcome—I think it’s more than apt.

So why shouldn’t I use the word? Besides the usual whining about popular shit.

More to the point: no one here is claiming that Goku is perfect . But listing off a bunch of moments in which he’s being a jerk not only ignores context of those scenes it only gives you half of the story since you can easily list off a bunch of moments where he actually is a decent father or guy. The point I’m trying to make that is that, in the original series, Goku’s sense of decency and Gokus need to fight are constantly at odds with each other. Which made him an interesting, grounded character.

No. And considering what happened to the Simpsons, which also suffered from being too popular for its own good and overstaying it’s welcome—I think it’s more than apt.

It’s a stupid term. The Simpsons did not invent nor popularize the trend of a work of fiction exaggerating certain character traits. Why is just calling it character exaggeration so hard? Why must nerd circles online insist on using such stupid lingo.

So why shouldn’t I use the word? Besides the usual whining about popular shit.

It should also be noted that nearly everyone in the Simpsons is exaggerated. That was the point initially. It was satirizing family sitcoms. Flanders is one amongst MANY over exaggerated characters, so how the hell did he get stuck with such a dumb term?

You should stop using it because TV tropes should not be anyone's source for anything. Terms already existed for this idea - caricaturize.

But because that added that scene of them hugging at the tournament, now he just seems sad that he's leaving and nothing more.

I get what your issue is, but I don't agree. It doesn't feel like a moment that needs to be built up to and earned like the moments of affection between Vegeta and Trunks. Goku doesn't actively withhold affection.

The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

Since when does something have to “invent” a term in order for it to be okay to use. Of course Simpson’s didn’t invent the usage of the word—but it’s the most popular example of this concept precisely because it’s the longest running animated series in history. So of course it makes sense that people are familiar with the concept because of the simpsons.

2. That while, yes, The Simpson’s was always meant to be a heightened satire of American life, that’s not what i’m referring to when I say Goku has been flanderized. It’s not that the character has been exaggerated, but that a popular or well known-trait of a character becomes the single defining trait of the character as the series continues. That is one of the major complaints of modern-day Simpsons: that characters that once contained a level of nuance have now been reduced to a one-dimensional trait. See Homer: a character who started out as a bumbling, but well-meaning father turned into an Uber asshole on the level of Peter Griffin simply for a joke. Sounds kinda familiar within the context of DB doesn’t it?

If you’re going to come after me for using a word you don’t like—at least know what it means first.

Since when does something have to “invent” a term in order for it to be okay to use. Of course Simpson’s didn’t invent the usage of the word

We never claimed they did, nor did we claim something has to invent a term in order for it to be okay to use. If you read more carefully, you'd see what we said was there was always an existing word for the phenomena you're talking about. If you are going to get so exasperated, at least have the courtesy to read and understand our point.

The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

Since when does something have to “invent” a term in order for it to be okay to use. Of course Simpson’s didn’t invent the usage of the word—but it’s the most popular example of this concept

First off no, no it isn’t. There is no “most popular example”’of this concept because it’s simply something that has existed in long running fiction forever. There is no most popular example of a long running series tending to to exaggerate certain character traits.

Hell the fact that you can mention another character from the same series (Homer) who is a more prominent character actively contradicts this asinine notion that Ned Flanders is somehow the ultimate example of this trend. Just because some assclown came up with the term doesn’t make it valid

This from the very same website that one identified a character from Digimon as the ultimate example of a male character trying to get with a female character he has no chance with and a character from Sabrina the Teenage Witch as the go to example of the “popular bitch” character.

. So of course it makes sense that people are familiar with the concept because of the Simpsons

Anyone who consume any long running form of media will be familiar with the concept.

For christ sake it’s not even a trope the fact that it’s on a site called tv tropes is mind boggling.

Last edited by MasenkoHA on Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Now that I think of it, that's true. A trope is a recurring theme, plot convention, or other element within the narrative. Characters becoming exaggerated versions of themselves isn't a trope. I'm not sure what to call it, but it's not a trope.

If I do ever get around to watching Super, I'd be interested to see if this ends up being true.

The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

Now that I think of it, that's true. A trope is a recurring theme, plot convention, or other element within the narrative. Characters becoming exaggerated versions of themselves isn't a trope. I'm not sure what to call it, but it's not a trope.

A tendency or a trend. Most of tv tropes “tropes” aren’t even tropes.

If I do ever get around to watching Super, I'd be interested to see if this ends up being true.

No, it really isn't. I guess it is if you find reading analysis that drops context repeatedly.

Speak it for yourself. I don't have to agree with your thoughts. For me, yes was worth read, mostly because he could define some differences that I didn't grasp the first time I read the manga. If you didn't think the same, well too bad.

Nickolaidas wrote:Guys, I'm going to be straight with you. If you feel the show has gotten 'silly' ... it hasn't. You're just 'too old for this shit'. Seriously, 95% of the people in those boards do not fit the target demographic of the show, so don't expect the show to be 'everything you hoped for'. I'm referring to the people here who expect Super to be rich with dark moments, serious storytelling, meaningful characters etc etc. It won't. It's a show for kids. A show for kids being kids.Everyone in those boards has a manchild in him/her, clamoring to get out, and that's fine. But having unrealistic expectations (such as believing the show grew up alongside you) is naïve at best. Honestly, do you take seriously a story where the supposed God of Destruction halts his urges to blow up stuff in order to eat ice cream sundae? That's the show's silliness at full force, take it for what it is. The show hasn't matured one bit, so don't expect it too. Again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm saying *that* is DB and always will be.

No, it really isn't. I guess it is if you find reading analysis that drops context repeatedly.

Speak it for yourself. I don't have to agree with your thoughts. For me, yes was worth read, mostly because he could define some differences that I didn't grasp the first time I read the manga. If you didn't think the same, well too bad.

Fine, it was worth it for you, but not for me, nor should it be for anyone who is on to his shtick. He didn't define any differences, all he does is constantly drop context to put the characters and story into the worst possible light and that's when he doesn't outright make stuff up.

The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

Fine, it was worth it for you, but not for me, nor should it be for anyone who is on to his shtick. He didn't define any differences, all he does is constantly drop context to put the characters and story into the worst possible light and that's when he doesn't outright make stuff up.

Nickolaidas wrote:Guys, I'm going to be straight with you. If you feel the show has gotten 'silly' ... it hasn't. You're just 'too old for this shit'. Seriously, 95% of the people in those boards do not fit the target demographic of the show, so don't expect the show to be 'everything you hoped for'. I'm referring to the people here who expect Super to be rich with dark moments, serious storytelling, meaningful characters etc etc. It won't. It's a show for kids. A show for kids being kids.Everyone in those boards has a manchild in him/her, clamoring to get out, and that's fine. But having unrealistic expectations (such as believing the show grew up alongside you) is naïve at best. Honestly, do you take seriously a story where the supposed God of Destruction halts his urges to blow up stuff in order to eat ice cream sundae? That's the show's silliness at full force, take it for what it is. The show hasn't matured one bit, so don't expect it too. Again, I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I'm saying *that* is DB and always will be.

I'm all for characterization and depicting Goku as a fighting enthusiast, who mourns at the loss of his opponents who could have had another way, but this scene is outright ridiculous considering the context, because not only is it a subtle drawn expression that was lacking in situational brevity - Goku did in fact stop to consider whom he had defeated, when the planet was about to explode by his own hand, after Freeza killed a friend and drew him past the fighting challenge - it wasn't appropriate for the viewers not knowing how quirky and creative for the sake of it some authors tend to be. Besides, what people complain about Dragon Ball Super is here, in this scene, and the Tournament of Power recreated this through Jiren's forced motivation to kill the spectators, for Goku to give him a fighting enthusiast's pat on the shoulder in the end. TOEI was different then, and the studios knew whom the audience was, an international one, but the manga was Toriyama's and DBS felt more local, despite the fact that it's already known worldwide. It's reflected on the writing and I wish that people who criticize modern Dragon Ball noticed how closely it relates to the manga more than the adaptation of it in the 90s without getting blinded by their feelings towards consistency.

Fine, it was worth it for you, but not for me, nor should it be for anyone who is on to his shtick. He didn't define any differences, all he does is constantly drop context to put the characters and story into the worst possible light and that's when he doesn't outright make stuff up.

Which stuff did he make up?

Writing things like "He hit ChiChi on purpose as well and feigned innocence (note the stuttering)," should be enough to show you he's full of crap. You should've stopped immediately and not taken a word of what he wrote as credible.

The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.

This topic seems to be heading into pretty dark territory so I'd like to post a slightly more positive message, if I may!
I'd just like to take this time to say this is one of the discussions of the fandom I've become more fascinated with over time. I feel like the dialogue has become much more nuanced (especially here), and though once people's stances were Superman vs country bumpkin, it has become much more of a grey area. Which I really appreciate. People now seem more comfortable taking ret-cons into consideration, and treating the narrative as the ever developing beast that it was.
I think the difficulty is ultimately that there's really no Toei Goku or manga Goku, there's a lack of consistency in each, but the fact that people can still put them under the knife and examine the pieces individually is a great read for (mostly) lurkers like me.

Excellent read, Tavarano. Shows the "Superman Goku" started with the original anime.

Do not give Tavarano props. Tavarano is a troll and how good a read can it be when he drops context repeatedly and makes shit up? An excellent read would have to prove its point using evidence, and that post had none.

The biggest truths aren't original. The truth is ketchup. It's Jim Belushi. Its job isn't to blow our minds. It's to be within reach.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take - Wayne Gretzky" - Michael Scott
Happiness is climate, not weather.